Timeline for Integral zeros of the Newton polynomial
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2019 at 8:57 | answer | added | user599553 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 14:36 | comment | added | user599553 | If I understand what you're hinting at, I apologize for the last line of my comment being unclear. I meant to say that the result follows from my geometric intuition when $s=2$ and hence all the vectors are in $\mathbb{R}^2$ but I can't prove it for higher dimensions. You're right about dropping the $a_i$, if it is $0$. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 14:13 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | I am afraid I do not get your point. If some $a_i$ for $i>1$ is zero, you may simply remove this term. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 13:26 | comment | added | user599553 | Thanks for thinking about the question @FedorPetrov. Non-vanishing of the binomial determinant reaches the contradiction that (a_1, a_2, .. a_s) be identically equal to 0 which is too strong. Also, to me, it sheds no light on why should the sparsity (the number s) be related to the zeros. Does it to you? I still believe that the geometric intuition I mentioned above could lead somewhere since the set of zeros in question lie in the positive quadrant of R^s and it is very easy to see that a point in R^2 is perpendicular to at most one point in the first quadrant. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 8:54 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | This claim is less or more equivalent to the non-vanishing of binomial determinant which is usually derived from Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot Lemma. I agree that it would be nice to have alternative proof (as is always nice, other proof sheds some light), but not sure that it must exist. | |
| Jul 8, 2019 at 7:44 | history | edited | user599553 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jul 7, 2019 at 13:07 | comment | added | user599553 | Hi, do you have any ideas for the question please? | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 13:05 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | They are not the same forum. | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:57 | history | edited | YCor |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:54 | history | edited | user599553 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:51 | comment | added | user599553 | I was unaware that they are the same forum. Deleted the stackexchange entry. Thanks. | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:44 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Simulposted to math.stackexchange, an abuse of the system. math.stackexchange.com/questions/3285713/… | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:26 | comment | added | user599553 | The result is Lemma $1.4$ in the following paper eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/032 It includes a proof by contradiction using something called the Lindstrom-Gessel-Viennot Lemma. I want a more intuitive proof. | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:11 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | where is this result taken from? | |
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:09 | history | edited | user599553 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:00 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 7, 2019 at 12:36 | |||||
| Jul 7, 2019 at 11:56 | history | asked | user599553 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |